Sign upLogin

rapid7/metasploit-framework

View on GitHub
Star
modules/exploits/linux/local/docker_cgroup_escape.rb

Summary

Maintainability
C
1 day
Test Coverage

Method exploit has a Cognitive Complexity of 21 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

  def exploit
    # Check if we're already root as its required
    fail_with(Failure::NoAccess, 'The exploit needs a session as root (uid 0) inside the container') unless is_root?

    # create mount
Severity: Minor
Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/docker_cgroup_escape.rb - About 2 hrs to fix

Cognitive Complexity

Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

  • Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
  • Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
  • Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

Further reading

Method initialize has 56 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.
Open

  def initialize(info = {})
    super(
      update_info(
        info,
        'Name' => 'Docker cgroups Container Escape',
Severity: Major
Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/docker_cgroup_escape.rb - About 2 hrs to fix

    Method exploit has 41 lines of code (exceeds 25 allowed). Consider refactoring.
    Open

      def exploit
    # Check if we're already root as its required
    fail_with(Failure::NoAccess, 'The exploit needs a session as root (uid 0) inside the container') unless is_root?

    # create mount
    Severity: Minor
    Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/docker_cgroup_escape.rb - About 1 hr to fix

      Consider simplifying this complex logical expression.
      Open

          if release_short >= Rex::Version.new('5.13.0') && release_long < Rex::Version.new('5.13.0-37.42') || # Ubuntu 21.10
       release_short >= Rex::Version.new('5.4.0') && release_long < Rex::Version.new('5.4.0-105.119') || # Ubuntu 20.04 LTS
       release_short >= Rex::Version.new('4.15.0') && release_long < Rex::Version.new('4.15.0-173.182') || # Ubuntu 18.04 LTS
       release_short >= Rex::Version.new('4.4.0') && release_long < Rex::Version.new('4.4.0-222.255') # Ubuntu 16.04 ESM
      return CheckCode::Vulnerable("IF host OS is Ubuntu, kernel version #{release} is vulnerable")
      Severity: Critical
      Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/docker_cgroup_escape.rb - About 1 hr to fix

        Method check has a Cognitive Complexity of 8 (exceeds 5 allowed). Consider refactoring.
        Open

          def check
    print_status('Unable to determine host OS, this check method is unlikely to be accurate if the host isn\'t Ubuntu')
    release = kernel_release
    # https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/2022/CVE-2022-0492
    release_short = Rex::Version.new(release.split('-').first)
        Severity: Minor
        Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/docker_cgroup_escape.rb - About 45 mins to fix

        Cognitive Complexity

        Cognitive Complexity is a measure of how difficult a unit of code is to intuitively understand. Unlike Cyclomatic Complexity, which determines how difficult your code will be to test, Cognitive Complexity tells you how difficult your code will be to read and comprehend.

        A method's cognitive complexity is based on a few simple rules:

        • Code is not considered more complex when it uses shorthand that the language provides for collapsing multiple statements into one
        • Code is considered more complex for each "break in the linear flow of the code"
        • Code is considered more complex when "flow breaking structures are nested"

        Further reading

        Similar blocks of code found in 3 locations. Consider refactoring.
        Open

            if release_short >= Rex::Version.new('5.13.0') && release_long < Rex::Version.new('5.13.0-37.42') || # Ubuntu 21.10
       release_short >= Rex::Version.new('5.4.0') && release_long < Rex::Version.new('5.4.0-105.119') || # Ubuntu 20.04 LTS
       release_short >= Rex::Version.new('4.15.0') && release_long < Rex::Version.new('4.15.0-173.182') || # Ubuntu 18.04 LTS
       release_short >= Rex::Version.new('4.4.0') && release_long < Rex::Version.new('4.4.0-222.255') # Ubuntu 16.04 ESM
      return CheckCode::Vulnerable("IF host OS is Ubuntu, kernel version #{release} is vulnerable")
        Severity: Major
        Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/docker_cgroup_escape.rb and 2 other locations - About 1 hr to fix
        modules/exploits/linux/http/vinchin_backup_recovery_cmd_inject.rb on lines 100..107
        modules/exploits/unix/http/quest_kace_systems_management_rce.rb on lines 91..97

        Duplicated Code

        Duplicated code can lead to software that is hard to understand and difficult to change. The Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle states:

        Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.

        When you violate DRY, bugs and maintenance problems are sure to follow. Duplicated code has a tendency to both continue to replicate and also to diverge (leaving bugs as two similar implementations differ in subtle ways).

        Tuning

        This issue has a mass of 55.

        We set useful threshold defaults for the languages we support but you may want to adjust these settings based on your project guidelines.

        The threshold configuration represents the minimum mass a code block must have to be analyzed for duplication. The lower the threshold, the more fine-grained the comparison.

        If the engine is too easily reporting duplication, try raising the threshold. If you suspect that the engine isn't catching enough duplication, try lowering the threshold. The best setting tends to differ from language to language.

        See codeclimate-duplication's documentation for more information about tuning the mass threshold in your .codeclimate.yml.

        Refactorings

        Further Reading

        Similar blocks of code found in 17 locations. Consider refactoring.
        Open

                  [ 'URL', 'https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=24f6008564183aa120d07c03d9289519c2fe02af'],
          [ 'URL', 'https://blog.trailofbits.com/2019/07/19/understanding-docker-container-escapes/'],
          [ 'URL', 'https://github.com/T1erno/CVE-2022-0492-Docker-Breakout-Checker-and-PoC'],
          [ 'URL', 'https://github.com/PaloAltoNetworks/can-ctr-escape-cve-2022-0492'],
          [ 'URL', 'https://github.com/SofianeHamlaoui/CVE-2022-0492-Checker/blob/main/escape-check.sh'],
        Severity: Major
        Found in modules/exploits/linux/local/docker_cgroup_escape.rb and 16 other locations - About 25 mins to fix
        modules/auxiliary/scanner/smb/smb_ms17_010.rb on lines 37..46
        modules/exploits/freebsd/local/intel_sysret_priv_esc.rb on lines 52..61
        modules/exploits/linux/local/af_packet_chocobo_root_priv_esc.rb on lines 59..68
        modules/exploits/linux/local/network_manager_vpnc_username_priv_esc.rb on lines 45..54
        modules/exploits/linux/local/rds_atomic_free_op_null_pointer_deref_priv_esc.rb on lines 60..69
        modules/exploits/linux/local/ufo_privilege_escalation.rb on lines 57..66
        modules/exploits/multi/fileformat/evince_cbt_cmd_injection.rb on lines 42..51
        modules/exploits/multi/http/joomla_http_header_rce.rb on lines 31..40
        modules/exploits/multi/script/web_delivery.rb on lines 79..88
        modules/exploits/solaris/local/libnspr_nspr_log_file_priv_esc.rb on lines 39..48
        modules/exploits/solaris/local/rsh_stack_clash_priv_esc.rb on lines 45..54
        modules/exploits/unix/smtp/exim4_string_format.rb on lines 49..58
        modules/exploits/unix/webapp/open_flash_chart_upload_exec.rb on lines 30..39
        modules/exploits/windows/http/exchange_proxylogon_rce.rb on lines 46..58
        modules/exploits/windows/local/ms_ndproxy.rb on lines 70..79
        modules/exploits/windows/scada/rockwell_factorytalk_rce.rb on lines 32..41

        Duplicated Code

        Duplicated code can lead to software that is hard to understand and difficult to change. The Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle states:

        Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system.

        When you violate DRY, bugs and maintenance problems are sure to follow. Duplicated code has a tendency to both continue to replicate and also to diverge (leaving bugs as two similar implementations differ in subtle ways).

        Tuning

        This issue has a mass of 31.

        We set useful threshold defaults for the languages we support but you may want to adjust these settings based on your project guidelines.

        The threshold configuration represents the minimum mass a code block must have to be analyzed for duplication. The lower the threshold, the more fine-grained the comparison.

        If the engine is too easily reporting duplication, try raising the threshold. If you suspect that the engine isn't catching enough duplication, try lowering the threshold. The best setting tends to differ from language to language.

        See codeclimate-duplication's documentation for more information about tuning the mass threshold in your .codeclimate.yml.

        Refactorings

        Further Reading

        There are no issues that match your filters.

        Category
        Status